This situation has raised some questions in my mind.

There are a number of models on Shapeways made to fit Star Wars games (names intentionally omitted so as not to ruffle anyone's feathers.)

I wonder, if Disney were to go after one of them, who would they target? The seller or Shapeways?

So, with our main source of a proper space station gone, anyone know a nice alternative space station model?

Give me some time.

Space station, asteroids and wrecks please. Make the wrecks from generic, copyright-free scoff vessels. They should probably be on acrylic bases that are conveniently the exact size and shape of the ones in the game.

I was this close to buying the set from Space Rocks before they went belly-up. Lucky I didn't.

I sell an asteroid model on my site, it was originally geared towards the Star Fleet Battles and Battlespace crowd, so it's on a hex base.

They're not too hard to make your own, get some extruded foam and pick away at it until it has a shape you like and voila!

(I suppose that wasn't a very shrewd business move on my part to tell you how to make them...I mean, the only way you can get a quality models is my visiting my website and ordering dozens of them! )

This situation has raised some questions in my mind.

There are a number of models on Shapeways made to fit Star Wars games (names intentionally omitted so as not to ruffle anyone's feathers.)

I wonder, if Disney were to go after one of them, who would they target? The seller or Shapeways?

In the past, Shapeways takes down any offerings that they are informed violate ip.

I've had an entrpreneur friend show a device to some "chinese investors" who showed up with a low quality rip off the next year, putting him out of business.

IP is what keeps the US innovating (and the lack thereof which makes Chinese "technology" a continuing joke). It's what keeps food on my table too (I work for an R&D startup).

All that being said, i had my spacerocks order fulfilled, albeit incredibly late: I personally think their product promoted, rather than hindered, sales of official product. Unfortunately, under the law, thats a hard distinction to make. I wish the spacerocks guys the best of luck: truly was a nice product that filled a niche for those of us who wanted a luxury tabletop experience. I frankly wouldnt be surprised if the ffg overlords had a set in their office :/

Maybe he should show the "chinese investors" a set of space rocks?

Ironically I got an extra set of astroids sent to me to make up for their mistake in shipping my order. Their customer service was great, so it would be a shame if they have resorted to some shady practices.

A lawyer friend told me that Disney has to at least seem like they're protecting their IP in case something happens in the future and in court the 'Space Rocks getting away with it thing' becomes an issue.

In saying that I don't see why Disney don't just buy out or make some sort of business arrangement with Mike. I mean clearly its a product that supports their gaming systems and is in high demand.

Yeah, part of maintaining your claim to IP is prosecuting violations. sh*tty situation that incentivizes over-aggressive prosecution of potential copyright violations. Even if Disney's lawyers didn't actually want to pursue litigation against space rocks, the way the law is written pushes them into it out of an abundance of caution.

That only applies to trademarks. A trademark owner has to maintain their claim on a trademark or they lose it. Copyright and patents are different. Owners of copyrights and patents can choose to enforce their monopoly or not as they choose - they don't lose them until the term expires.

In terms of Space Rocks, the C&D specifically mentioned various figures that Space Rocks had taken casts of, then produced figures of them for profit. This is both trademark and copyright infringement. This also isn't a case of over-zealous lawyers. This is a fully legitimate case of intellectual property protection. Those protections exist to prevent others from profiting from something someone else created. It's no different than if someone bought a book from a bookstore, scanned it in via an OCR program, then started printing copies of those books for sale. The licensed publisher and the author would be perfectly in their rights to sue in that case. This is no different.

Considering the letter mentions the Corvette, Falcon and Decimator miniatures specifically, it's pretty clear that this wasn't just about the Nebulon-B model. Particularly since it wasn't even specifically mentioned. Making copies of something someone else produced is generally a slam-dunk IP case for courts, really.

A lawyer friend told me that Disney has to at least seem like they're protecting their IP in case something happens in the future and in court the 'Space Rocks getting away with it thing' becomes an issue.

In saying that I don't see why Disney don't just buy out or make some sort of business arrangement with Mike. I mean clearly its a product that supports their gaming systems and is in high demand.

Yeah, part of maintaining your claim to IP is prosecuting violations. sh*tty situation that incentivizes over-aggressive prosecution of potential copyright violations. Even if Disney's lawyers didn't actually want to pursue litigation against space rocks, the way the law is written pushes them into it out of an abundance of caution.

That only applies to trademarks. A trademark owner has to maintain their claim on a trademark or they lose it. Copyright and patents are different. Owners of copyrights and patents can choose to enforce their monopoly or not as they choose - they don't lose them until the term expires.

In terms of Space Rocks, the C&D specifically mentioned various figures that Space Rocks had taken casts of, then produced figures of them for profit. This is both trademark and copyright infringement. This also isn't a case of over-zealous lawyers. This is a fully legitimate case of intellectual property protection. Those protections exist to prevent others from profiting from something someone else created. It's no different than if someone bought a book from a bookstore, scanned it in via an OCR program, then started printing copies of those books for sale. The licensed publisher and the author would be perfectly in their rights to sue in that case. This is no different.

Considering the letter mentions the Corvette, Falcon and Decimator miniatures specifically, it's pretty clear that this wasn't just about the Nebulon-B model. Particularly since it wasn't even specifically mentioned. Making copies of something someone else produced is generally a slam-dunk IP case for courts, really.

What were they selling related to the Decimator and Falcon? I knew the debris had parts of the Vic and Neb B in it.

I never had the money to burn, so I never looked too deeply into their products.

What were they selling related to the Decimator and Falcon? I knew the debris had parts of the Vic and Neb B in it.

I never had the money to burn, so I never looked too deeply into their products.

X-Wing based Debris / Asteroids.

What were they selling related to the Decimator and Falcon? I knew the debris had parts of the Vic and Neb B in it.

I never had the money to burn, so I never looked too deeply into their products.

X-Wing based Debris / Asteroids.

Thank you. Figured as such.

This also isn't a case of over-zealous lawyers. This is a fully legitimate case of intellectual property protection. Those protections exist to prevent others from profiting from something someone else created. It's no different than if someone bought a book from a bookstore, scanned it in via an OCR program, then started printing copies of those books for sale.

This is true, and I didn't mean to imply that this was an illegitimate suit; though, re-reading my post, I can see how it could be interpreted like that. I do think in this case Disney is entirely within their rights. I was more just commenting on the trademark situation writ large.

With Space Rocks being hit, does this effect Mel Miniatures/Shapeways in any way as they are basicly making Armada/X-Wing models to sell or do they have a way around it?

The fact that the models are compatible with X-Wing or Armada is of little or no consequence.

The issue is that the IP for the ship designs belongs to Disney. They may be much more likely to intervene if the products are directly based on copies of actual products from FFG/Disney than if they are "scratch-built" by Mel or others, but they certainly could either way.

A lawyer friend told me that Disney has to at least seem like they're protecting their IP in case something happens in the future and in court the 'Space Rocks getting away with it thing' becomes an issue.

In saying that I don't see why Disney don't just buy out or make some sort of business arrangement with Mike. I mean clearly its a product that supports their gaming systems and is in high demand.

Yeah, part of maintaining your claim to IP is prosecuting violations. sh*tty situation that incentivizes over-aggressive prosecution of potential copyright violations. Even if Disney's lawyers didn't actually want to pursue litigation against space rocks, the way the law is written pushes them into it out of an abundance of caution.

That only applies to trademarks. A trademark owner has to maintain their claim on a trademark or they lose it. Copyright and patents are different. Owners of copyrights and patents can choose to enforce their monopoly or not as they choose - they don't lose them until the term expires.

In terms of Space Rocks, the C&D specifically mentioned various figures that Space Rocks had taken casts of, then produced figures of them for profit. This is both trademark and copyright infringement. This also isn't a case of over-zealous lawyers. This is a fully legitimate case of intellectual property protection. Those protections exist to prevent others from profiting from something someone else created. It's no different than if someone bought a book from a bookstore, scanned it in via an OCR program, then started printing copies of those books for sale. The licensed publisher and the author would be perfectly in their rights to sue in that case. This is no different.

Considering the letter mentions the Corvette, Falcon and Decimator miniatures specifically, it's pretty clear that this wasn't just about the Nebulon-B model. Particularly since it wasn't even specifically mentioned. Making copies of something someone else produced is generally a slam-dunk IP case for courts, really.

Could I buy the book, tear it up into pieces, scan the pieces and then print the pieces and then sell the pieces? Just a thought heh

Could I buy the book, tear it up into pieces, scan the pieces and then print the pieces and then sell the pieces? Just a thought heh

Not if the pieces were recognisable as being derived from the original.

With Space Rocks being hit, does this effect Mel Miniatures/Shapeways in any way as they are basicly making Armada/X-Wing models to sell or do they have a way around it?

The Space Rocks wrecks looked like someone had hacked up the original models, filled in the cavities and then used them to make a master mould. If you did that with a GW product, GW would actually win a copyright infringement lawsuit for once.

I had actually gotten the base set some time back and felt the Space Rocks crew provided pretty good support. Glad I got them when I did.

Had thought it may be cool to pick up additional wrecks to place on the game board when a ship was destroyed so a ship going 'boom' made an instant debris field.

Not tournament legal but rather thematic for house games.

Guess that plan is out now.

Any news on this? I'm curious if there are perhaps plans to re-release the starbase + debris stuff under a different company name or whatever. I suspect the main issue with the cease and desist was the Nebulon-B model.

Any news on this? I'm curious if there are perhaps plans to re-release the starbase + debris stuff under a different company name or whatever. I suspect the main issue with the cease and desist was the Nebulon-B model.

I'd assume so. You could argue the debris was transformative rather than derivative but Disney may not have seen it that way. Also probably fell under UK law, which I understand isn't as permissive with fair use.

However a couple issues. First think there would be a lot of trust issues with them if they started selling again. A lot of people got burnt. Second is they may have signed agreements not to do anything related again as part of not going for damages. Third is that even if there isn't an explicit agreement I would be super gun-shy about starting up business with related product again.

My guess is we'll have to wait for someone else to step in. Maybe they'll sell the molds for the uninfringing bits?

Have we confirmed that the C&D is real BTW? If we're entertaining the idea that the C&D dates are blanked out to allow them to steal money by taking extra orders that they knew they couldn't fulfil, why not consider the possibility that they made the C&D themselves as a fake reason to wrap up and run with the money?

It's real.